crander

Note that many casual users do not know that shift click to maximize will "properly" maximize many, but not all, OS X apps.

Sure, but you are arguing for short-term spending vs long term capital investment. Basically you are arguing that you don't need to get more sleep, you'll just have a red-bull tonight. So the red-bull is better than getting more sleep in general.

If you take all the money (100%) from people who build and make things and give it to people who don't have jobs to spent, in the short term things will be bought and everything thing will appear stimulated. In the long run your entire economy will collapse as your capital base erodes. The basic Keynesian error is to not distinguish between purely consumptive (why don't create jobs to build ships, fill them full of gold and new technology, and then drive them into the Pacific and sink them?) and productive goods which actually build economic wealth and raise the standard of living.

The feds took over radio spectrum in the early days of spark gap transmitters for the "public good." It's just the way it is unless you want to fight the FCC at this point.

One of the major reasons all the consumer wireless devices suck is that only small slices of junk spectrum was given away to these unlicensed devices (ISM band). Additionally, the chaotic nature of open spectrum requires different contention protocols effect the efficiency and jitter characteristics of wireless networks. When you can't just call the feds to kick people off your band you have to "play nice" is possibly wasteful ways.

The original wifi protocol basically took carrier sense multiple access with collision detection (CSMA/CD) and turned it into collision avoidance (CSMA/CA). Instead of backing of after a collision (which we can't detect in wireless) we back off before every transmission - cutting throughput in half.

Intel can see it. The development of the Atom was partially a reaction to ARM. Intel is in a classic innovator's dilemma and unwilling, apparently, to pursue the most successful strategy to counteract it - create a standalone business entity that can and will compete at the smaller scale.

Many of these articles then extrapolate the ARM X86 battle into the server space - which does not follow. The mobile disruption is that smaller devices will replace laptops and potentially desktops with newer simplified usage models and not that X86 will be wholesale swapped for ARM in every case. Cloud computing does present though a separate potential to disrupt server X86 that companies like Tilera are pursuing.

Is it me or do the pictures portray a vastly different level of social prospects for each of these categories?

Read "The Pentium Chronicles" by Bob Colwell. The Pentium 4 is the time frame when marketing took over Intel and fed this Ghz myth when many knew it was a doomed long term path.

Does this linguist really think higher interest rates will drive away capital in an open economy?

No, no they wouldn't.

The iPad shipped a year before the competition. Sure it doesn't have a multiuser operating system... it was based on smartphones. Apple faces engineering tradeoffs too. They shipped, they delivered, and they will add this if it makes sense when they can.

Tools for developers and designers is a big point. Especially with new hires.

Ten years ago joining a major corporation gave you access to resources you didn't have on your own. Exchange was better than Yahoo mail. The T20 cost so much almost no one would buy it for personal use.

Today when student graduate they are often used to and already own Mac laptops or high-end PCs and are using Google services. They can lose productivity going from these (cloud) consumer to enterprise technology systems.

I recommend the Gartner report "Gartner_Report_BYOC_checklist.pdf" on BYOC.

My home button died on my iPad after six months. Warranty replacement.

You do realize that an air superiority fighter can shoot down every other plane in the sky, and not just other fighters right?

There are also battle groups with F-18s and AWACS planes and so on that are much nearer than the F22s in Hawaii.

Anyone else remember when Google offered a free public VPN service to solve this problem a few years back? They shut it down in weeks. Awesome but I expect they had way too much traffic.

First, to argue that web application need to be "on par" with Desktop applications to replace them is totally false. See The Innovator's Dilemma. In a nutshell existing technologies become too feature rich and complex and exceed market demand. This creates a disruptive opportunity for simpler technologies to replace them in the mainstream by growing upmarket.

When disruptive technologies achieve the minimum required feature set to meet market demand, market competition shifts to other criteria. One case study in the book describes how cable actuated earth movers companies felt save as hydraulic actuated earth movers could never move as much earth and initially had zero commercial applications. They still can't. Yet hydraulic actuated earth movers have almost completely replaced cable driven ones, except at the market edges that require extreme performance, by establishing a foot hold beneath the existing market (ditch diggers) and innovating upwards.

Web applications are simple compared to desktop applications. They are constrained by web standards and run in sandboxed environments. The question is not whether web applications can exceed Desktop applications but whether they can meet market demand.

Software + Services (a term Microsoft created when faced with the Internet Services Disruption) is a hybrid, transitional strategy for desktop application companies that makes sense in partially connected environments. This is the model of Dropbox and every other data replication provider. Over time, perhaps with ubiquitous 4G networks, we'll see how this fares against low maintenance operating systems and zero maintenance web applications.

You cannot discuss innovation without discussing Christensen's Innovators Dilemma and disruptive innovation.

The market incumbent strives upmarket and creates a performance oversupply (a surplus of features in excess of customer demand) which opens space below for a downmarket competitor to disrupt upmarket.

I view it as a compliment to Jobs as a visionary.

From a business perspective, the desktop industry was still to peak and then shifted to a luggable version of the same ecosystem with laptops.

I prefer to think of this in a Christiansen disruptive technology context. Technologies grow upmarket beyond the needs of its user base and create a disruptive opportunity for downmarket technologies.

I recently made a comment about this on an Intel blog article (SC10: Jeff’s Notebook - Innovation and Disruption: How a Successful Company can be gone in 10 Years): http://intel.ly/dZAxKk